Down and Out in Paris and London

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating look at the "down and out" of the early 20th c.
Review: This book reads much more like a memoir than the novel it is, and indeed it is a largely autobiographical work. Orwell begins with an anonymous narrator describing daily life in the poorer parts of Paris during the early 1900s. He describes the din, the dirt, the bugs, and all else in vivid detail. The narrator, an Englishman by birth, is living in Paris and running low on funds. We follow him through various attempts to earn money, including work as a lowly dishwasher or "plongeur" in the city's hotels, and also in one dubious restaurant. We learn all the dirty behind-the-scenes secrets of these operations, and it's quite enough to make one's skin crawl and cause one to avoid hotels and restaurants forever.

The second half of the book follows the narrator back to his native England, where he must find a way to get by in London while awaiting a permanent job. Here we are introduced to the tramp's way of life - vagrancy, begging, and sleeping in the cheapest (and filthiest) accomodations available. But we also get to know some of the narrator's fellow tramps, and to feel for them. They are not all the worthless, lazy scum that the higher classes of the time would paint them as. Orwell concludes the book with a brief treatise on the vagrant's plight and ways in which it can be eased, as well as making the tramp a usefull part of society.

Obviously Orwell's closing call-to-action is not entirely relevant anymore, as the workings of society have changed somewhat over the last century, but the book is nevertheless fascinating. A reader may at first be a little thrown off by the lack of a central plot, but once past this it is easy to get sucked into the world Orwell has illustrated here. His imagery is so striking that you actually feel as if you are sharing the narrator's experiences. You can feel the intense heat of the hotel kitchens, feel the weakness and weariness that comes with malnutrition, smell the grease and the sweat and the dirt.

And yet, as bleak as all this sounds, the book is not depressing. The narrator never lapses into dejection or self-pity, and the reader is left with a sense of hope throughout the novel. Being poor is not presented as a dead end - there are always ways to get by, some of them quite ingenious. And the narrator is even able to find humor in some of the truly absurd situations he finds himself in.

Any fan of Orwell's works will not be disappointed with this book. Or even if you've read nothing by Orwell (in which case you absolutely must pick up "1984" at some point), and merely want a glimpse into the life of the poor and jobless at this point in history, this is the book for you. And the fact that the narrator is anonymous (although the story is largely based on Orwell's life, the narrator is not, as some reviewers have claimed, Orwell himself) helps us imagine that he could be anyone, and that even we could be living this life. It's fairly short and easy to read, but opens up a whole world - one that is rarely contemplated in much detail - with it's rich descriptions. Definitely a recommended read.

Rating:
Summary: one of orwells best
Review: Orwell rapidly became one of my favorite writers after I finished Animal Farm and 1984. I thought these books were great and so I set out to find more of his books. This is the book I stumbled upon and found is just as fascinating as the other two. This book outlines the plight of poverty in urban settings; from the long ours as a plongeure in Paris, to the rowdiness of late night pubs in London. Through out the novel he describes the terrible inconvenience and burdon having no money places upon a poor person. He also tells of great adventures he shares with his friends in trying to acquire money and fun. I highly recommend this book to any reader but especially to Orwell fans.



Rating:
Summary: Paris Good, London Bad
Review: The beginning Paris section is engaging and one gets caught up in the author's adventures in the seemy underbelly of the city.

The London section comes off as a dry, analytical essay on social conditions and is quite boring.

Rating:
Summary: Well worth reading...
Review: If your looking for a basic start, middle, end story then down and out is not for you. However, if you are looking for an honest insight in to the conditions of both Paris and London in the early 1900s then you have the right book. One can understand Orwell's plight and dedication in this book because of the fact that he has came from a wealthy middle class family and chooses to live like this. The book starts in Paris where the levels of poverty for the majority of people are shocking, unrecognisable by todays standards. Yet through Orwell's imagery and attention to detail even a teenager of the 21st century can imagine the filth and insanitary conditions of both towns. My favourite part of the book was the part in Paris. this is because the friendships he makes and the job he ends up with despite being horrific make the reader feel warm and that despite this hardship he is happy. The conditions in London and the description of the tramps and their way of life is sad and really makes you realise how lucky you are. A frank account.

Rating:
Summary: How would We react to this life?
Review: I don't recall what possessed me to buy George Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London after reading no Orwell since 1984. It was probably one of the online recommendations, and if so, a very good one it was. As a young man, educated but out of work, Orwell found himself in Paris with frightfully little money. Thus began his adventures through the Paris slums and the shady underside of life there.

This was not, apparently, an attempt on Orwell's part to go out and discover how the other half lives. It is not discipline but rather simple helplessness that sometimes forced him to go days without food, to pawn virtually everything he owned for a paltry few coins, and to live in desperation. Likewise, when work came, it was by necessity that he worked the hideously long hours at menial work in order to earn a living. So it was with at least in part the eye of the truly poor that he put to print what he experienced there. In true Orwell style, he manages to find the story in everyone he meets, and his powers of observation are exceptional.

When he manages to make it back to London, the book enters its second half. I found the London portion less insightful and entertaining. Learning that his waiting job is postponed a month, Orwell becomes a tramp, and travels through the various lodging houses and what passed for shelters in 1930's London. It was here that the text also becomes a bit dated and colloquial. Whereas in the Paris portion, presumably the dialogues have been translated from French into Standard English, in the London portion Orwell mimics street talk: "Want a kip? That'll be a `og, guv'nor." I've always thought this sort of thing just slows down the reading, does nothing for the story, and contributes to the inferiority of traditional English literature (American too, I'm not being a snob here). I also found the London bit more depressing and the characters less colorful and less sympathetic.

Actually, this is a point on which Orwell's future political leanings start to show. If his portrayals of some of these characters are correct, then I wouldn't want half of them working for me, either. A little professionalism, or just lack of criminal intent, can go a long way. Nonetheless, this book is meant more as a travelogue to the slums than as a deep analysis of societal problems. As entertainment, it is first rate, and as a look at a real aspect of life for many, it is a bit dated, but still first rate.

Rating:
Summary: A Must Read!
Review: Something my fellow reviewers do NOT seem to have noticed is that this is a work of FICTION. Look for the word on the binding of your copy of the book. I have no doubt that Eric Blair, who changed his name to George Orwell when he wrote this book in order not to be discovered by his parents and friends, did have some brushes with the sort of life he describes. But how much of this are we to believe actually happened?

The problem with Mr. Blair's work is that it is tendentious. There are any number of novels out there that include heart-rending accounts of the life of the poor during this era, try Somerset Maugham's Of Human bondage, for instance. But the polemic chapters at the end on word usage and societal change reveal the raison d'etre for this book. I wish Mr. Blair could have written a straightforward essay instead of this not very gripping account of slumming it around Dickens' two cities. In doing so, he exhibits the trait that he censures other writers for so severely in his later years, pretentious rot.